Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 45174-3-II Order Publishing Opinion.pdf

WSH argues that the trial court erred when it denied WSH' s CR 50 motion to dismiss
We
because Boyd failed to prove that WSH took an adverse employment action against him.

disagree.

8
             

45174 -3 -II

An adverse employment action involves a change in employment that is more than an

inconvenience or alteration of one' s job responsibilities. Alonso v. Qwest Commc 'ns Co., LLC,

178 Wn. App. 734, 746, 315 P. 3d 610 ( 2013). It includes a demotion or adverse transfer, or a

hostile work environment. Kirby v. City of Tacoma, 124 Wn. App. 454, 465, 98 P. 3d 827 ( 2004
611 ( 2002)). The employee
quoting Robel v. Roundup Corp., 148 Wn.2d 35, 74 n.24, 59 P. 3d

must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse,

meaning that it would have "' dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge

of discrimination. "' Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S. Ct. 2405,

165 L. Ed. 2d 345 ( 2006) ( quoting Rochon v. Gonzales, 438 F. 3d 1211, 1219 ( 2006)). " Whether a

particular reassignment is materially adverse depends upon the circumstances of the particular

case, and ` should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiffs

position.'" Tyner v. State, 137 Wn. App. 545, 565, 154 P. 3d 920 ( 2007) ( quoting Burlington N. &

Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U. S. at 71).

The trial court correctly declined to .determine as a matter of law that WSH' s actions were

not adverse employment actions. Washington courts look to ,federal antidiscrimination law to

construe the WLAD and we are " free to adopt th[e] se theories" which further the purposes of our